DEI programs in the news

[marshwiggle]

Ontario university seeks math professor who self-IDs as woman or gender minority

Aside from being an "exceptional scholar and researcher," the tenure track position, ranked as an assistant professor, is looking for candidates with a PhD or equivalent in pure mathematics or a related discipline.

"To address legal requirements for supporting underrepresented groups in the CRC program, eligible candidates for this search are required to identify as a woman or gender minority, which is defined to include individuals who self-identify as women, transgender, gender-fluid, nonbinary and Two-Spirit people."

The discussion of DEI, and here Canadian CDC, reminds me of a line in the movie Miss Congeniality [2000] where Sandra Bullock and Candice Bergen argue over whether the Pageant at the heart of the movie is a Beauty Pageant or a Scholarship Program. Is DEI a Reeducation Program or a Jobs Program? Outside a few States, it's a jobs program and, as such, can't fail!

What fascinates me is that there are so many candidates in any field who qualify as "exceptional scholar and researcher" that arbitrary other criteria can be added without emptying the pool. (It's good that includes those who "self-identify as women", because otherwise it seems like the pool would be mighty small in anything other than Gender Studies or something similar.)

[Wahoo Redux]

The Atlantic: Abolish DEI Statements

[marshwiggle]

The Atlantic: Abolish DEI Statements

Here it gets at the problem with "activism" in the context of DEI:

In Kennedy's case against DEI statements, he provides an example: a job opening for an assistant professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, where applicants are required to submit a statement of teaching philosophy that includes "a description of their 'orientation toward diversity, equity, and inclusion practices.'"

Notice what is implied: that there is a set of known DEI practices professors can deploy to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion, if they possess the desire to do so. In reality, however, there are robust scholarly debates about how best to advance or even define diversity, equity, and inclusion, let alone a bundle of all three values. One cannot reliably distinguish among applicants by their "orientation to DEI practices" without advantaging one side in such debates, infringing on academic freedom and contributing to an ideological monoculture.

[Wahoo Redux]

IHE: Iowa Lawmakers Pass Last-Minute Ban on DEI, Institutional Statements

[Wahoo Redux]

Published Feb of 2023:

IHE: DEI and the Necessity of Self-Defense

As Lily Zheng has noted, a fictional conceptualization of DEI drives much of the anti-DEI animus that higher ed is currently experiencing. As educators, we must use our pedagogical skills to emphasize that DEI work isn't about policing thought, discriminating against white folk and men, giving jobs to unqualified candidates based on their identities instead of their aptitude, or taking away anyone's privilege.

Rather, DEI activities are designed to address and dismantle structures and systems that perpetuate universal harm. At their core, DEI efforts are aspirations toward and actualizations of the platinum rule ("Do unto others as they would like done to them"). This expression of compassionate human decency is something that—it would seem—all people should aspire to, regardless of their personal political affiliation.

[marshwiggle]

Published Feb of 2023:

IHE: DEI and the Necessity of Self-Defense

As Lily Zheng has noted, a fictional conceptualization of DEI drives much of the anti-DEI animus that higher ed is currently experiencing. As educators, we must use our pedagogical skills to emphasize that DEI work isn't about policing thought, discriminating against white folk and men, giving jobs to unqualified candidates based on their identities instead of their aptitude, or taking away anyone's privilege.

Rather, DEI activities are designed to address and dismantle structures and systems that perpetuate universal harm. At their core, DEI efforts are aspirations toward and actualizations of the platinum rule ("Do unto others as they would like done to them"). This expression of compassionate human decency is something that—it would seem—all people should aspire to, regardless of their personal political affiliation.

I think they said the quiet part out loud.

"Do unto others as they would like done to them"???? Who wouldn't love to be given a million dollars and a villa on a tropical island? (Fill in your own fantasies here.)


Sorry, it's impossible for everyone to be given everything they want, especially since humans are never satisfied, so the expectations will get more outrageous as time goes on.

[FishProf]

Treat people the way they want to be treated?  Outrageous!

[Wahoo Redux]

I don't think you quite understand what that phrase means, Marshy. 

[marshwiggle]

I don't think you quite understand what that phrase means, Marshy. 

Why do you say that? The point is that how anyone wants to be treated flies in the face of a society that strives to treat people fairly. In the latter case, if everyone is treated the same, then that effectively means doling out available resources equally. But in the former, if everyone (or every "group") gets to decide what they feel they deserve, that makes no reference to whether that is compatible with the available resources in the context of what everyone else feels they themselves deserve.

[Wahoo Redux]

I don't think you quite understand what that phrase means, Marshy. 

Why do you say that? The point is that how anyone wants to be treated flies in the face of a society that strives to treat people fairly. In the latter case, if everyone is treated the same, then that effectively means doling out available resources equally. But in the former, if everyone (or every "group") gets to decide what they feel they deserve, that makes no reference to whether that is compatible with the available resources in the context of what everyone else feels they themselves deserve.

It's Kant's categorical imperative simplified.

All it says is treat other people the same way you would want to be treated.

[marshwiggle]

I don't think you quite understand what that phrase means, Marshy. 

Why do you say that? The point is that how anyone wants to be treated flies in the face of a society that strives to treat people fairly. In the latter case, if everyone is treated the same, then that effectively means doling out available resources equally. But in the former, if everyone (or every "group") gets to decide what they feel they deserve, that makes no reference to whether that is compatible with the available resources in the context of what everyone else feels they themselves deserve.

It's Kant's categorical imperative simplified.

All it says is treat other people the same way you would want to be treated.

No, that's not what it says.

At their core, DEI efforts are aspirations toward and actualizations of the platinum rule ("Do unto others as they would like done to them").

"Treat others as you would like to be treated" is entirely different than "Treat others as they would like to be treated."

I heartily agree with the former; the latter is a hole with no bottom.

[RatGuy]

I don't think you quite understand what that phrase means, Marshy. 

Why do you say that? The point is that how anyone wants to be treated flies in the face of a society that strives to treat people fairly. In the latter case, if everyone is treated the same, then that effectively means doling out available resources equally. But in the former, if everyone (or every "group") gets to decide what they feel they deserve, that makes no reference to whether that is compatible with the available resources in the context of what everyone else feels they themselves deserve.

It's Kant's categorical imperative simplified.

All it says is treat other people the same way you would want to be treated.

No, that's not what it says.

At their core, DEI efforts are aspirations toward and actualizations of the platinum rule ("Do unto others as they would like done to them").

"Treat others as you would like to be treated" is entirely different than "Treat others as they would like to be treated."

I heartily agree with the former; the latter is a hole with no bottom.

I think you're willfully misunderstanding that quote. And I know your impulse is to respond with "here's what it literally means" and continue spinning in circles. But if you really attribute unfairness, narcissism, and/or maliciousness to the idea that people are asking to be seen as a certain way, I'm not sure anyone on these fora (or elsewhere) can help you understand.

[marshwiggle]

"Treat others as you would like to be treated" is entirely different than "Treat others as they would like to be treated."

I heartily agree with the former; the latter is a hole with no bottom.

I think you're willfully misunderstanding that quote. And I know your impulse is to respond with "here's what it literally means" and continue spinning in circles. But if you really attribute unfairness, narcissism, and/or maliciousness to the idea that people are asking to be seen as a certain way, I'm not sure anyone on these fora (or elsewhere) can help you understand.

Narcissicm would be the closest. As I said above, the resources available are finite. How everyone can be treated is limited by the total resources available. (It's a "tragedy of the commons" problem.)


Consider the issue of pronouns. Pronouns, aside from making speech more fluid, essentially reduce the cognitive load of constantly referring to everyone by name, since one pronoun can be used for many different people. However, if people are allowed to make up their own pronouns, then in principle every person could make up their own unique pronoun. In that case, rather than decreasing cognitive load, remembering the names and pronouns for each individual would increase cognitive load beyond that required to simply remember names. If everyone chooses their own pronouns, there's no point to using them instead of names.

Here's another example: Suppose the required enrollment for a course is 25 for economic reasons. Below that, it can't afford to run. Say there are 20 men and 10 women in the course. 30 people , being above the threshold, allows the course to run. However, if for some reason women in the course felt that they needed a separate section of the course, then that would require breaking in into two sections, one with 10 students and one with 20 students. Both of those would be below the threshold, so neither could run. The finite resources prevent people getting what they would like to have.

In countries with universal healthcare, the societal agreement is that it is more important that services can be available to all, than that they be limited according to individual ability to pay. This is the principle I am defending; fairness is about accommodating peoples' wishes to the extent that everyone can be similarly accommodated.

[dismalist]

...
"Treat others as you would like to be treated" is entirely different than "Treat others as they would like to be treated."

I heartily agree with the former; the latter is a hole with no bottom.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."